rose to call the attention of the House to the circumstances connected with the expenditure of public money in the improvement of harbours, which he thought to be of great importance, The House would recollect, that about eight years ago a discussion took place with regard to the harbours of this country, and that in 1845, by an address of that House, Her Majesty appointed a commission to inquire into the state of our tidal harbours and navigable rivers. That commission collected a vast deal of valuable information upon the subject generally, and the Members were unanimous in recommending the adoption of a course to the Government with the view of securing for the future a proper appropriation of any funds that might be required for the improvement of the harbours of this country. Amongst other evils which the commission pointed out, there was one of long standing. By an Act of Charles II., the harbours of the country had been placed under the superintendence of the authority of the Lord High Admiral, who had powers under that Act to prevent all encroachments on land under and within the high-water mark of ordinary tides. In short, instructions were laid down in that Act that no buildings, no works, or alterations of any description should take place, but under the sanction of the Admiralty. On inquiry it was found that the Admiralty, from the pressure of circumstances and the immense amount of business falling on that department, had altogether neglected that duty, and that in no cases had they ever interfered with any works proceeding in any river or harbour, unless the same had been referred to them by the complaint of parties interested. The consequence was, that many works had been undertaken without the knowledge of the Admiralty, which had tended, owing to their unskilful execution, materially to injure the harbours. The commissioners, finding that this was the case, and that the Board of Admiralty had not had leisure to attend to these numerous works, but had deputed a large portion of the business to the hydrographer, recommended that a separate department should be appointed to manage these matters, and they prepared a Bill which was intended to carry out all their recommendations, and to provide for the appointment of a permanent officer whose duty it should be to see that no injury was done to the harbours of the country. It appeared to the commission that the system hitherto carried on had not been attended with advantage; that the natural harbours of the country had been neglected, and in many eases had actually filled up. Numerous were the instances in which this had occurred, He could mention one. In the time of Charles II. the harbour of Rye was capable of admitting a line of battle ship—a large frigate; but now, up to within a quarter of a mile of the town, the harbour had silted up so that a small boat could not ride afloat. To prevent the recurrence of such a state of things, the commissioners recommended the appointment of the distinct department to which he had referred; and he must say, that when Lord Auckland succeeded to the Admiralty, he appeared to be fully aware of the evils arising from the former system; and it was but justice to his memory to say, that no man could have evinced a stronger disposition to remedy the evils that had arisen than Lord Auckland did. But his Lordship being unwilling at that time to raise any discussion in the House of Commons, proposed to carry out, as far as possible, the recommendations of the commission, by making a branch under the Admiralty, and placing this matter under their charge. Accordingly a Committee was appointed, consisting of Captain Bethune, Captain Washington, and Captain Veitch, who were to take cognisance of the state of our harbours and navigable rivers. The appointment of that Committee had resulted in the greatest advantage—millions of money had been saved to the country by their proceedings, and the whole expense had been the difference between the half-pay of Captain Washington and 800l. a year that gentleman having been appointed by the Government on account of his immense acquaintance with our rivers and harbours. It was intended that no money, either public or private, should be expended on tidal harbours or navigable rivers, except under the superintendence of that department; but he complained that that rule had not been carried out. In order also to the accumulation of information on the subject, it was thought desirable by the commission that the Government should be in possession of plans of all our harbours. It was a fact that, whilst England was the largest commercial country in the world, the British Admiralty did not possess any series of plans of her harbours, so that if a French frigate, or any other frigate, approached a certain place, the Government had no means of ascertaining instanter whether there was water enough for her to float, whether there were quays, or any means of landing her troops or stores, or anything about it. In France, the case was very different, for he had seen a book, given to him by the Minister of Marine, containing a description of every harbour on the French coast, both within and without the straits—whether a tide harbour or a bar harbour—its depth; whether there were any quays by which troops could land, the number of boats attached to it, and the quantity of tonnage in each harbour. In England there was no such document; but he contended that the Government should be possessed of such information, and he proposed, therefore, that plans should be made, showing everything requisite to afford the fullest information to the Government. With reference to the services rendered by the commission which was appointed with the concurrence of Lord Auckland, he must say, that he had never met with any man, whose zeal, attention, and industry, had exceeded that of Captain Washington. Open at all times to give information, ready at all times to go anywhere where the public service required his attention, he felt bound to express the highest opinion of the talent which Captain Washington had exhibited, and the unvarying exactitude of his details. The report of the Harbour Committee was now printed; and though it was not yet in the hands of Members, the result was, that it recommended the reduction of the harbour department, and dispensing with the services of Captain Washington. He believed this reduction had taken place in consequence of the report of a commission composed of Lord Granville, Sir Edward Ryan, and Captain Berkeley; but he did not believe these persona were able to estimate the importance of the Tidal Harbour Commission. He should like to see their report, and the evidence upon which it was founded. He (Mr. Hume) wished to ask then who was, henceforth, to take the duties of that department—a department which the Tidal Harbour Commission had pointed out to be necessary, which was approved by the late Government, and by Lord Auckland, and of which Mr. Ward the late Secretary of the Admiralty, when he saw the amount of information they had gained, recommended the continuance. Who, he asked, was henceforth to conduct that department—who was to superintend the expenditure of money in matters connected with our harbours and navigable rivers? He held in his hand a list of sixteen reports which had been laid on the table of the House, all connected, more or less, with the harbours of refuge and navigable rivers of this country—a pretty good evidence of the importance of the subject; but he wanted to know what had been done, and in what way had the public interests been protected in the expenditure of money for the improvement of harbours of refuge. He did not wish at this moment to express any opinion with regard to harbours of refuge, though he had great doubts upon the subject; but he found that the House had voted for harbours of refuge—

In 1845	£120,000
In 1846	30,000
In 1847	140,000
In 1848	131,000
In 1849	141,500
In all	£562,500

But that was not all, for he found that there was voted for Holyhead—

In 1845	£33,836
In 1846	85,681
In 1847	4,429
In 1848	12,792
In 1849	45,771
In all	£182,509

These two sums together made up no less than 745,009l. of public money that had been voted for harbours within the last five years. He asked who had superintended these works and that expenditure—were there any reports to show the progress that had been made—was there any information whatever upon the subject? Who had the superintendence? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the Admiralty had; but he (Mr. Hume) found, from the opinion of the Lords themselves, that such was not the case. Admiral Dundas said—

"The progress of the different harbours of refuge is laid before Parliament every year, when money is voted for the advancement of the works. There is no occasion, I think, for the Harbour Commission to interfere, or go to any additional expense of public money by making inquiry."

Captain Berkeley and Lord J. Hay said—

"The Admiralty have no power or jurisdiction over the construction of these harbours of refuge. They were determined by a Committee appointed for that Purpose. The plans have been determined upon, and are not carried out under the authority or supervision of the Admiralty."

Then he asked, under whose authority or supervision were they? Captain Milne again said—

"No. 7 also appears to me unnecessary, as I believe the engineers send in a periodical report to the Admiralty, which should be filed in the hydrographic department or Record office."

Matters having been brought to this state, he hoped the House would enforce the presentation of these reports. Lord Auckland said, in his evidence, that although the contract of the work rested with the Admiralty, the Treasury was responsible for the plan and outlay. It would thus appear that the mode of expenditure was left to chance. He knew Mr. Walker and Mr. Rendel, the engineers, sent in reports as to certain items of expenditure, such as their travelling expenses, the charge for horses, and similar things; but this was not the description of expenditure which was required with regard to the nature of the general outlay; and as to their description of the works, be complained that they might have exercised a considerable and efficient control over those works merely with the additional pay of an officer. Sir George Cockburn had manifested much anxiety to proceed with this work, and had expressed a strong desire that a proper control should be exercised over the expenditure. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer indirectly knew nothing about the expenditure; he (Mr. Hume) thought, therefore, they should have a Committee to examine as to whether the expenditure was proper, and whether they were going on in a fit and proper manner, and in how far the views of the commissioners were likely to be realised. He should at present make no Motion on the subject; but it was a great and crying grievance that they should have millions expended on public works without knowing what would be the result, such as bad been the case with the New Houses of Parliament. He wished to know if there were any reports or any other documents which could be laid before the House showing what progress had been made since the several votes of money had been made?

said, that the I Admiralty had no power or jurisdiction over these matters, which were decided upon by a Committee. He was bound, in justice to Sir Robert Peel's Government, to say that it was their intention to have placed this department under a permanent head, and carried out the recommendation of the commission to the fullest extent. He trusted that a twopenny-halfpenny economy would not be practised in the dismissal of Captain Washington. The question was one involving millions, and not a shabby addition to a gentleman's half-pay.

said, that having been chairman of the Tidal Harbour Commission, he happened to know the dangerous state in which several of them were, in consequence of the works which had been allowed to be carried on in them in connexion with railways and other undertakings. Nothing could be more important than the report made in 1846, and which he feared the House was not sufficiently acquainted with; for it was not very likely that many hon. Members had explored the gigantic folio before him. He hoped the attention of the Government had been drawn to the subject, and that they would sec during the recess what farther steps should be taken. If the Government did not propose something on the subject early next Session, be should press upon the House the propriety of adopting steps to carry out the recommendation of the Tidal Harbour Commission. It had been originally proposed to proceed in another way than that adopted; but Lord Auckland thought the Bill which had been drawn up on the subject was too stringent, and therefore recommended the suggestion that the commission should be carried out under a separate department of the Admiralty. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose in viewing with the greatest grief and dissatisfaction the course taken by the present Board of Admiralty in diminishing the number of officers employed. He objected to the title given to the department; it should rather have been called the Board of Conservancy for Harbours, instead of the Harbour and Railway Department. He had always thought a member of the Board of Admiralty should also have been a member of that board. A report existed abroad, which he trusted was unfounded, that some private influence had been exerted to continue the old system of abuse with respect to these harbours, and that powerful intrigue was at work to destroy the efficiency of the Board of Conservancy. A report which he had heard was, that Captain Washington had done his duty too conscientiously and too independently, therefore he was to be dismissed. He trusted there was no truth in this report, which, however, he felt bound to mention to Her Majesty's Government.

said, with regard to the report to which the gallant Officer alluded, it was not very easy to answer it. The only part of the statement true was, that the change had been made, and, if any one, he was the party who made it—it was entirely his own act—and he alone was responsible for it. He was sure the House would be surprised at the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, when he (Sir F. Baring) stated that he had made no alteration in the powers or business of the harbour department, and he had no intention of doing so. He held the opinion that the harbour department was of great public use and importance to the country, and had rendered a great deal of valuable service, and had operated as a very considerable check on the obstructions which had been gradually allowed to be made in our tidal harbours by local interests. It was not, therefore, intended to reduce the usefulness of that department. All that be had done, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon knew, was a subject of discussion before the Committee on the Navy Estimates last year, when it was considered whether the work could not be done with fewer hands. The question of the employing of these gentlemen in this service, was considered a matter for the revision of the Admiralty. For that and other reasons he had considered the state of what was called the harbour and railway department; and he, in connexion with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, had appointed a commission to look into the whole subject of harbours, and, upon the report of that body, he came to the conclusion that the duties respecting tidal harbours could be performed, as before, by two instead of three officers. He had looked into the matter himself, and for what was done he was responsible. Seeing that the work could be effectually done by two gentlemen, he had made a communication to Captain Washington, to the effect, that as he was the junior officer, and had been last appointed, he was the party with respect to whom the reduction should be made. If he had reasons for thinking that the work could be done by two, he was not justified in retaining three gentlemen. He was satisfied that there would be as efficient a check on encroachments in the tidal harbours by a department of two, as by one composed of three officers. Then the hon. Member for Montrose alluded to another point, namely, the harbours of refuge. The harbours of refuge were not undertaken by the present Board of Admiralty, but had been commenced when he was out of office. It was a plan adopted by the Government, and Lord Auckland gave his assent as far as the Admiralty was concerned, to give proper assistance in carrying it out. The hon. Gentleman had asked for reports as to what had been done. The Admiralty had entered into contracts for the works; and Mr. Rendel and Mr. Walker sent in quarterly statements as to the state of the works and the progress of the contracts. Lord Auckland had taken a great deal of interest in the matter, and inspected the works last year which were in progress in the Channel Islands. As to the mode of transacting the business connected with these works, he had made no alteration since he had been in office. What existed before, existed now; and as soon as the House was up, he intended to go on a visit of inspection to the Channel Islands, to see how the works were going on there. The hon. Gentleman thought other reports were necessary; he did not share that opinion with him. He was perfectly satisfied with respect to the expenditure on them, as under the control of the Admiralty, by the engineers he had named. He was bound, however, to add, that he was not entirely satisfied that there should not be some reports from one of their own officers respecting them. Therefore the Engineer officer who enjoyed the confidence of the Board, would inspect the progress, and report on the nature of the works.

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman was the last person in the world whom he would think of charging with a job; but he must call the attention of the House to the circumstance that the private business of the House during the present Session had been seriously obstructed by the delay which had taken place in sending up the necessary reports from the Admiralty respecting Bills affecting harbours or navigable rivers, which must be submitted to that board in the month of December, if they were to be proceeded with in the next Session. He hoped that in future Sessions of Parliament arrangements would be made at the Admiralty to prevent a recurrence of that delay.

stated, that the delay alluded to by the hon. Gentleman arose from the circumstance that the officers of the harbour department wished to save expense to the parties interested, and therefore performed the duties themselves instead of sending down commisioners.

said, as it appeared the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had only read a part of the report, without the evidence, he thought that the hon. Gentleman's attack on the Committee was rather unfair. The hon. Member also took upon himself to say that the Admiralty did not know what these harbours along the coast of England would contain—a line of battle ship, frigate, or corvette. The hon. Gentleman could not have fallen into a greater error respecting the facts of the case, for every information which could be required on the subject was in the possession of the hydrographical department; the charge against it, therefore, was without foundation. The hon. Gentleman insinuated that he (Captain Berkeley) and other Gentlemen had not read the report of the commissioners on tidal harbours; but he could state that he had taken as much trouble on the subject as the hon. Gentleman himself, to read and make himself master of that document; and he should have felt that he Lad greatly neglected his duty if he had not done so.

felt bound, as a member of the Tidal Harbour Commission, to pay his humble tribute of respect to Captain Washington for the great attention, assiduity, and industry manifested by that gallant officer on all occasions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, however, had mixed up two distinct subjects, namely, the tidal harbours and the harbours of refuge, which had no necessary connection with each other. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Admiralty was totally ignorant as to what was going on respecting these harbours; he could state that the Lords of the Admiralty visited the works at Dover and Harwich within the last few weeks. Then as to the stability of the work, he believed nothing could be better or more satisfactory than the progress of the works under Mr. Walker and other eminent engineers.

thought it very hard that the Admiralty should be censured for reducing their staff of officers, when the First Lord declared that this was done from a feeling of economy, and could be effected without injury to the public service. The Government stated that they had done this on their own responsibility; and because the hon. Member wished to protect some pet child, he (Mr. Henley) did not think they should be blamed for their desire to effect a saving.

asked which department was originally responsible for the original plan of the harbours of refuge, and which department was responsible for the expenditure, and seeing that the works were duly executed?

replied, that the works had been undertaken in conformity with the recommendations of a commission appointed by the late Government. The Admiralty was charged with the responsibility for the works. The whole circumstances connected with them was fully explained by him before the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates, to which he would refer the hon. Gentleman.

did not think that the present conversation had been altogether useless. It appeared from the evidence before the Committee last year on the Navy Estimates, that the Admiralty was held responsible for the expenditure; but Lord Auckland stated that the scale of the outlay had not been laid before that board, and the plan and outlay did not rest with it. It appeared that the detail of the expenditure was under the direction of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he did not think this joint control was one with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be satisfied. The statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty appeared to him to be perfectly satisfactory. It appeared that the Admiralty hereafter would be fully responsible for the expenditure, as that department would no longer be satisfied with the reports of the last engineers engaged on the works alone, who might have an interest to encourage a large outlay. It was therefore intended that the works should be inspected by the other Government officer. Colonel Irvine, who was the director of the engineering and architectural works connected with the Admiralty. He did not think that there could be a more satisfactory arrangement.

said, that at an early part of the Session he drew the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the system of the distribution of medals to the officers and seamen of the Navy; and the House was given to understand that there would be a reconsideration of the several claims. There were many actions in which the approbation of the Admiralty was specially given, and the country never intended that these parties should be excluded from the advantage of a medal. For many of these actions the Order of the Bath had been given. That such a distinguished officer as Admiral Owen should not be in possession of a medal did appear something extraordinary. In another place he understood Earl Grey said, that such actions as he had mentioned, which had received the special approbation of the Admiralty, should be excluded from the receipt of the medals.

said, the question was one which created much interest in the country. Many officers who had distinguished themselves in the command of boats were wholly excluded from participating in the distinction which the medal conferred.

stated, that he could not only say that it was a matter of great difficulty to decide as to what claims should be admitted; but he knew that both the late Lord Auckland and the Duke of Wellington entirely agreed that they must he guided by certain rules. It was difficult to decide now as to the peculiar merits of actions between 1793 and 1815. It was held that they could not be influenced by any case of individual conduct. It was agreed by both the distinguished persons he had alluded to, when officers were promoted at the time of an action, or received other marks of approbation, they were not now entitled to medals. They were unwilling to pass by claims; but the Duke of Wellington had stated that if they did not draw a distinction, every man in the service of the Crown during the last war might put in a claim. There was every desire to do justice to all; but the House must see that there must be some rules, and he did not know how any rules could be drawn which would not appear harsh in some cases. He had had a great many communications with the Duke of Wellington on the subject, which had convinced him that no better rules could have been drawn than those acted upon.

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, he was sorry to trouble the House with any observations at that late period of the Session; but it would give great satisfaction to a large body of householders if the House were to ratify the principle of relief embodied in the Bill. The question lay in a nutshell, and with the permission of the House he would shortly explain it. Hon. Members were aware that the new franchise created by the Reform Bill was given to householders occupying tenements of a certain yearly value, having resided within the borough for which they claimed to vote for six months, and having occupied a tenement for twelve months. The other condition was, that they should have paid up all rates and taxes. The machinery provided by the Reform Bill for carrying the principle into effect was, that the overseers of every parish were required to make out a list of persons occupying tenements of 10l. yearly value, and who had paid their rates and taxes. From the list so prepared, the clerk of the peace made out the register of votes. Now, in very many of the large parishes in England, and especially in the metropolitan parishes, there were local Acts empowering the parish officers to compound with the owners of houses for the payment of rates; and this power was very extensively acted upon. A deduction was allowed of 25 per cent, and the consequence was, that the owner of 50 or 100 small houses obtained no inconsiderable profit by calling on his tenants to pay him the full rate, while he had a discount of 25 per cent. The only name in the rate-hook was that of the person who paid the rate, and the consequence was, that for several years subsequent to the passing of the Reform Bill, the occupiers of such houses known as compound householders, had been completely disfranchised. It was contended that a remedy was provided under the 30th section of the Reform Act, which enacted that a person occupying a house in a borough of the yearly value of 10l., and who had been omitted by the overseer, might claim to be registered on tendering the payment of his rate. The tide of revising barristers had all been in that direction, and they were confirmed by two decisions in the Common Pleas. But the Common Pleas decided that there should be payment of every rate. The state of things then was this. The compound householder might claim to be registered, provided that after every fresh rate he put in his claim and tendered any rate that might be then due; but the result was virtual disfranchisement, as there were few who for the sake of a political privilege would attend and put in a claim to the franchise four, and in some cases six, times a year. The evil was deeply felt in the Tower Hamlets, where, as he was informed—he did not pledge himself to the numbers—there were upwards of 16,000 householders thus disfranchised. In one parish alone, as he was informed, there were 3,500 persons entitled to vote, but of these only 300, constituting a franchise association, had claimed to be put upon the register. He was sure the House would agree with him in thinking that such a state of things demanded a remedy; and what he proposed to do in his Bill was to put the compound householders on the same footing as the 40s. freeholders—that was to say, to require from them only one claim for the franchise, that being the requirement of the 37th section of the Reform Act. All other persons being qualified were placed on the register without their own act, but the 40s. freeholders in counties were obliged to make one claim. He could not conceive that there would be any objection to the principle of this measure. Some of the machinery might be thought clumsy; but he did not think that any one would consent to keep from the franchise persons who, both by occupation and payment of rates, were entitled to it.

agreed that this was no question of franchise. The only question was, whether the machinery by which it was proposed to alter the mode whereby these parties could claim the franchise, was a right machinery. It was proposed that, once upon the register, they should remain there till objected to. The overseers would have no knowledge whether they even remained in the parish. Freeholders, to ever so low an amount, could not fairly be put in the same category with easily fluctuating lodgers. Besides, it was hardly fair, in so thin a House, at the close of the Session, to catch a second reading by way of affirming the principle of a Bill, which could not really be proceeded with in this Session. He would therefore move that it be read a second time this day three months.

agreed that this was not properly a question of franchise, but of regulation; but could not agree with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire if he meant that no remedy was required upon this subject. The Reform Act gave the right of voting to these persons; but it appeared that the only mode in which they could assert and maintain their rights was so difficult and vexatious, that practically they had not the right which the Reform Act intended that they should have. He (Lord J. Russell) must say that he thought his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets had made out his case in that respect; and that if a man was obliged, whenever a rate was made, to go afresh to the overseers, and ask to have his name put upon the rate-book, and constantly be present to renew his claim, he was prevented from enjoying the right the Reform Act gave him. He (Lord J. Russell) agreed that the right ought not to be given in such a manner as to leave any doubt as to the person being really the householder he was described to be, and really an inhabitant of the parish; but there could be some security under this Bill, in the party, being on the register, having constantly to pay the rates. He would vote for the second reading of the Bill, because he admitted that this was a case requiring a remedy; but at the same time, if they went into Committee, care must be taken that the person claiming the vote was personally liable for the payment of the rates, and that his name stood upon the hooks as the person charged with the payment of them, and that, unless it was found he had paid the rates up to the time which the law required, he would not be entitled to a vote.

said, it appeared that the noble Lord was about to vote for the principle of a Bill the machinery of which he, at the same time, confessed was inoperative. If the Bill passed into a law, all the securities provided by the Reform Bill would be completely lost. Upon this subject he begged leave to quote the opinion of Lord Denman. In the case of "The Queen v. Bridgnorth," 10 Adolphus and Ellis, 66, it appeared that payments had been made to the overseers in gross sums, some of the parties stating that they had not authorised such payments, and did not know of them till after they were made. Lord Denman said—

"If the practice described were to prevail, there would be great danger of the most enormous bribery. The statute, in requiring that rates shall have been paid, contemplates some payment by the party's own hand."

put it to the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, whether it was not a useless waste of time to be discussing this question? They had very important business before them, and he must say he thought it a complete waste of time at such a period of the Session to be engaged in an idle discussion like this.

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in thinking that this was a most lamentable and inexcusable loss of time; and if the hon. Baronet persisted in forcing the matter to a division, he should feel it his duty to vote against him. He admitted the premises of the noble Lord, but he was sorry to say he had come to the very opposite conclusion that the noble Lord had arrived at. He was of opinion that the householders in the position described by the hon. Baronet, were entitled to the franchise, and that some difficulty existed in obtaining the right to exercise that franchise; he also agreed that a remedy ought to be provided, but that this was not the remedy. In these circumstances he could not consent to vote for the Bill before the House.

had great unwillingness to withdraw the Bill after the hostile expression of opinions from the other side. However, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had expressed his conviction that the grievance was one which ought to be remedied, he would, at his suggestion, withdraw the Bill, on the understanding that if the noble Lord did not next Session bring in a Bill, he should himself deem it his duty to do so.

observed, that by the 256th Clause certain acts were set down as offences—there were nine of them—and if the court—that was, a single Judge—should he of opinion that the bankrupt had been guilty of any one of these nine offences, he might refuse the certificates, and then all the debts proved under the commission became judgment debts, and any one of the creditors might take the bankrupt in execution, and incarcerate him in gaol for a year, the court having the power to release him within that time. He was aware that in the present bankrupt law something like the same principle was established, but he was anxious it should not be extended. He had several objections to the present clause. The first was, that they thereby deprived every bankrupt of the power to be tried by a jury of his country, and gave the right to every single bankruptcy Judge to decide that the debtor was guilty of the offences named in the clause—not upon the issue joined on the question, not upon a solemn trial, but they allowed the comment' or dictum of the Judge to determine whether a man was a fraudulent debtor or not. They not only gave this power to the Judge, but they enabled the creditor to imprison the debtor for a year; thus authorising the pound of flesh to be taken from the debtor, and imprisoning him besides, for having, it might be, incurred the anger of a creditor. He must say that he was very unwilling to trust the kindness of those who laid it down as a principle that every debtor was, of necessity, a rogue, and every creditor an honest man. A creditor, it should be remembered, very often gave a man money, well knowing that he was giving it to a person who was incapable of refunding; and, therefore, the creditor ought not to be given a power which the criminal law ought only to exorcise, that of imprisoning a man for a year. What did the debtor do at present? When he came into court, he gave up all that he had. The bankruptcy law was not a criminal law. It administered the assets of an unfortunate debtor. He was of opinion that the House ought to make a civil judge a criminal judge; and he asked of them to make a slight alteration in Clause 256, to meet the views he had taken the liberty of propounding. He had no objection to the court saying to the bankrupt—"I believe you to have been guilty of destroying a hook, paper, or document fraudulently, and I will order the assignee to institute a prosecution against you in the criminal courts." They had made a proviso to this effect in another clause, and he moved that they do the same in Clause 256.

was Sony to be obliged to oppose the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend. He believed the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of this provision in the Bill. The hon. Member for Leominster, although he objected to some of the provisions of the Bill, did not oppose this. It had also received the universal assent of the trading classes. He knew that the gentleman to whom the commercial classes in the city of London had intrusted this Bill were favourable to it, as well as the deputations which had come up from various parts of the country. Under such circumstances he was justified in saying that the commercial and trading classes were favourable to these provisions of the Bill. He would shortly point out what was their effect. As the law now stood, a Commissioner of Bankrupts had the power of withholding a certificate without protection. Therefore, for any one of these offences, or for some not nearly so great, the commissioners would suspend the certificate. This, therefore, was in the shape of a specific notice to traders as to the punishment to which they would be liable if they were guilty of certain acts. Many of these offences were now defined by the law as it stood as misdemeanors, and might be punished accordingly, and they were merely specially pointed out in this Bill. The object was to leave the course of law in full force.

conceived it highly inconvenient that one of the most important measures which could come under the attention of the House should come down at the end of the Session. This code of laws, in the shape of a Bill, was of greater importance than any other that had been before the House during the Session, for upon the state of the law of debtor and creditor the prosperity of the country depended. They were now asked to pass a Bill of this nature within two or three days of the prorogation. He declared that he had been positively afraid to read such a long-Bill, and be believed that many of his hon. Friends entertained the same opinion. He agreed altogether in the opinion expressed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield as to the objectionable nature of the provisions of the Bill alluded to by him, which called for the serious attention of the House. He most strongly objected to their adopting such a measure merely because it came down backed with the recommendation of a Select Committee. If the House, as a legislative assembly, was to depute such powers to a Select Committee, it might as well abandon its functions. In the course of the Bill going through Committee yesterday, many of the anomalies of the bankrupt law, as described in that Bill struck him with amazement. The 125th Clause appeared to him to be one of the most tyrannical enactments he had ever met with. It empowered the court to issue an order to the Postmaster General to direct that all letters addressed to the bankrupt should be transmitted to the official assignee and opened by him. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, this was only a part of the old law.] He knew this; but when this Bill was sent to the Committee it was their duty to consider the whole extent of the bankrupt law as embodied in the Bill, for what was bad in the old law they were bound to rescind. The clause, however, to which he alluded empower ed the court to direct the Postmaster General to withhold all correspondence from the bankrupt, and authorised the official assignee to open all letters for him for a period of three months, and the court might renew such order for a similar period from time to time. The object of this was in consequence of a suspicion that the bankrupt was likely to be guilty of fraud, and a concealment of his property from the assignee of the court. This proceeding was in his mind most objectionable. He believed such an enactment must have escaped the notice of the House, and then, on the 26th of July, it was too late perhaps to put an end to such a state of things. He would not encourage his hon. and learned Friend to persevere in his Amendment, for he would find other parts of the law besides that which he had alluded to, to be so bad that a change must be made in them. Much as he valued the labour and attention bestowed on the Bill by the Members of the Committee, he was not one to say, because they had allowed and approved of the 125th Clause, and other parts of the bankrupt law, that he was bound to give in his adhesion to them.

felt called upon to make some observations after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. He would, in the first place, shortly explain the particular alteration in the law of bankruptcy proposed to be made by this Bill to which the hon. and learned Member had referred. The House was aware, that upon the refusal or the suspension of a certificate, the consequence to the bankrupt was twofold—'first, in reference to his property, and next, in reference to his person. Any property which the bankrupt might acquire, whether by his own industry or by inheritance or gift, passed at once to the assignees, and was distributable among his creditors. His person also was liable to be taken in execution on a judgment obtained by any creditor who had chosen not to come in under the bankruptcy. But all creditors who had proved their debts under the bankruptcy, were considered to have elected not to proceed at law, and were barred from so proceeding, whether the bankrupt obtained his certificate or not. What the Bill proposed to do, was to make every debt proved under the bankruptcy a judgment debt; and the assignees were to be judgment creditors for the aggregate amount of the debts proved. The effect would be, that on the refusal or suspension of the certificate, any creditor, or the assignees on behalf of the whole body of creditors, would be at liberty to take out execution against the person of the bankrupt, and put him into prison. As the exercise of this power of imprisonment depended upon the refusal or suspension of the certificate, this Bill contained certain provisions upon the subject of the certificate; the general effect of which, he thought, would be to limit the discretion of the commissioners. At present the discretion the commissioners possessed to withhold or grant a certificate, was without control. The Bill, after enumerating certain acts of misconduct, most of which were already indictable offences, proceeded to enact that upon satisfactory proof that the bankrupt had been guilty of any of those offences, the commissioner should refuse or suspend the certificate for a limited time; and the consequence of such refusal or suspension would be, that the bankrupt would be liable to be imprisoned by any of his creditors or the assignees. That was the proposed alteration of the law; an alteration which he believed to be called for, because considerable dissatisfaction was felt at the insufficiency of the present law of bankruptcy to check acts of misconduct on the part of fraudulent bankrupts. Complaint was made, that the present law held out a positive encouragement to the breach of mercantile engagements among the trading community, and that, for want of proper restrictive laws, persons entered upon improvident speculations and extravagant adventures with other people's capital. The bankrupt law, from its origin, had, he thought, been open to this reproach. The principle of that law was this—that a person, when he became embarrassed, might, by surrendering all his property, and conforming to the bankruptcy law in every respect, get discharged of all his debts as completely as if he had paid them in full, however fraudulent his conduct as a trader might have been, or how little soever his insolvency might be owing to accident or misfortune. But while the law thus overlooked altogether the conduct of the bankrupt previously to his bankruptcy, it was immoderately severe against any acts of misconduct of which he might be guilty after the fiat in bankruptcy was awarded; and the punishment even of death was at one time inflicted upon the trader who did not surrender and make a full disclosure of all his effects in conformity with the bankrupt law. But the law was mitigated, and those offences which once were capital were made felonies or misdemeanors, punishable by transportation or imprisonment. That was the state of the law down to the 5th and 6th of Victoria. In that year a new principle found its way into the bankrupt law. The power was taken from the creditors to dissent from the granting of the certificate; and the law conferred upon the court a discretionary power of withholding or granting the certificate. The only question till then had been, whether the bankrupt's inability to pay was real or fictitious—was it a pretence or not? If his inability to pay was fictitious, he (Mr. Peel) had already shown with what severity the law punished such misconduct; but if his inability to pay was real, then the certificate was granted as a matter of right, however fraudulent his conduct as a trader and in the course of his trade might have been. But even admitting his inability to pay to be real, another question now remained behind. That question had reference to the cause of this inability to pay. The commissioner had the power to trace the course of his insolvency, and see whether it had its origin in accident or misconduct, in misfortune or in overtrading; and, if the latter, the commissioner might refuse the certificate altogether. With regard to this proposed power of imprisonment, he understood one object of it was to give the court a more efficient control over the conduct of the bankrupt anterior to his insolvency, rather than a mere power to refuse or suspend the certificate now afforded. Another object, he thought, was to provide a cheap and expeditious mode of punishing misconduct which could now only be punished through the medium of a prosecution at law. He believed, also, it would check that facility with which the uncertificated bankrupt now embarked again in trade, and obtained advances and goods from persons who had no means of ascertaining his real position, and who discovered too late that all property in his possession was liable to be taken by his assignees for the satisfaction of his antecedent liabilities. This was the purpose for which this power was introduced; and he thought it was a method for carrying out that object the least open to objection of any that had been suggested for that purpose. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield seemed to object to imprisonment for debt altogether; and perhaps it might seem to be unjust against a bankrupt, all whose property had been taken from him. But it ought to be remembered, that in the use which it was intended to make of imprisonment for debt, its scope and object as a civil process (which is to get at a man's property through his person) was entirely overlooked, and it was intended to be used only as an instrument of punishment. He admitted, that, in so doing, they were straining a process which the law had given to the creditor with a different view; but he thought, on the whole, that, under the checks provided by this Bill, the power of imprisonment was less open to objection than any other mode which, might have been adopted for attaining the same object would have been. He, therefore, gave this provision of the Bill his support, because it gave the creditor the protection which he really required, and which it had been the tendency of recent legislation to deprive him of, and because he thought they ought to aim at checking the annual sacrifice of bad debts which took place in this country under fiats of bankruptcy and deeds of composition, which, according to a calculation he had seen, actually amounted to no less than 50,000,000l. Seeing, moreover, the importance of the functions of credit in a commercial country like Great Britain, they should do all they could to extend credit by diminishing the risk to which all capital invested in the form of debt was liable, and hereby placing credit upon a just and firm foundation. He thought, therefore, that the power of imprisonment for debt at the suit of the creditor, subject to the control and discretion of the court, was not too extensive a power to grant in the circumstances.

had heard the speech of his hon. and learned Friend with great pleasure, and also with pain. As a warm and sincere Friend of his hon. and learned Friend, he had heard him address the House with so much perspicuity with pleasure, and with regret, because he could not agree with the doctrines which his hon. and learned Friend had laid down. He (Sir J. Graham) was unlearned in these matters; but still he had taken part in former revisions of this branch of the law. His hon. and learned Friend thought it was a great public object of the highest importance to promote the security of credit, and his learned Friend added, to extend credit. He (Sir J. Graham) doubted the latter; but when credit was withheld in consequence of the great losses attending the trade of the country, if it could be traced to fraud, it should be checked by punishment, but not of an extremely heavy description. The question was, whether the policy which had recently been acted upon with regard to credit was within equitable limits, or whether there should be a great change after the short experience they had had of the law, and arm the creditors with more summary powers, to be exercised either by themselves or the commissioners on their behalf. The law had been most accurately stated by his hon. and learned Friend, and it was quite true that all the offences enumerated in the 256th Clause were indictable offences. The real question was, whether, admitting that some of these offences were felonies and others of them misdemeanors, and which the creditors were entitled to proceed against by indictment as the law stood, they should now be brought under the summary jurisdiction of a judge in the shape of a commissioner of bankrupts. The law of bankruptcy was distinctly for the purpose of securing the assets of a bankrupt, and distributing them amongst his creditors, and incidentally there was the power of withholding the certificate permanently, or suspending it for a time. At present, a bankrupt, for such acts as were enumerated in the clause, must be proceeded against by indictment, and for this purpose the creditors must go before a grand jury, and before a petty jury, and before a judge of high station, while an intelligent bar was present to watch the proceedings. Thus the greatest possible checks were given by the law against abuses. It was now proposed to give to a single commissioner jurisdiction over the bankrupt in such cases; and in case the commissioner should adjudge against the party, he was liable to imprisonment. Thus he was without any of the former checks under the law as it stood, which secured a calm and dispassionate consideration of the case. He would not speak disparagingly of the Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy; but it was well known that the commissioners, in consequence of the limited amount of salary which they received, were not taken from those who occupied at the bar a high station. He said it with pain; but still if they looked at the conduct of some of the commissioners, it would not only suggest to their minds that they might not be far from prejudices, but that that course might be taken which might tend to the ruin of the future prospects and character of a bankrupt. This should make them very cautious in giving such large powers to an individual commissioner. Then, again, those persons would be examined without the check of the bar, for there was no such check in that court. In all criminal suits, not only had they this check of the bar, but public opinion operated largely; but no such opinion operated with regard to the Court of Bankruptcy. All the great securities which he had enumerated, were wanting before the Bankruptcy Court. There was the case of a man overwhelmed with misfortunes; and when exposed to the most severe trials in life—at that moment, when he was visited with a double attack, on his person and property, and when he was making every effort in his power, to be exposed to the attack of a creditor who, he would not say, was excited with angry feelings, but labouring under a feeling against the bankrupt. If any party ever wanted protection, this was a case for it. The Bill as it was drawn deprived the bankrupt of it. He entertained the greatest doubts on the subject, and entertaining such doubts he was bound to exercise his judgment in favour of the weaker party. He thought the distinction had been judiciously drawn by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. All the property of the bankrupt should be placed under the control of the Court of Bankruptcy; but if he had committed a criminal offence, he should be tried before the ordinary tribunals of the country; for he doubted the justice of confiding this jurisdiction to any other tribunal, and above all to the Court of Bankruptcy, as it was constituted. Was this such a case in which they should set aside the general mode of proceeding, and allow the ordinary course of criminal jurisdiction to be forced into new channels? Under his experience of the bankruptcy law, he did not think that a power should be given to a single creditor to imprison a debtor for a criminal act on the decision of a single judge, and in the absence of a jury and a bar. On these grounds he should object to the alteration of the present law, and he perfectly agreed in the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield on the subject.

was aware of the difficulty of legislating properly upon the subject; but was also aware that the trading interest were so anxious for it that he would not undertake the responsibility of opposing its further progress. He believed, however, that the alterations it would effect in the present law were, upon the whole, exceedingly inconsiderable, for provisions in favour of the bankrupt, on one hand, were counterbalanced by provisions of a contrary character on the other.

objected to the clause. There were other fraudulent debts contracted besides bankrupt debts; and penalties ought not to be inflicted upon one class of the community which were not provided for another. If the hon. and learned Member divided, he should divide with him.

said, that the clause was intended to operate only against fraudulent debtors. During his mercantile career he had witnessed so many certificates obtained by fraud, that he felt the absolute necessity of instituting some check upon the system. It was most desirable that a line should be drawn between the fraudulent debtor and one who honestly gave up his property to his creditors. The latter, he hoped, would receive every consideration from the House.

agreed that a line should be drawn between the honest and the dishonest bankrupt; but he thought several clauses in the Bill went beyond the intention of the promoters of it.

objected to that part of the form for the certificate of conformity (Schedule Z), by which, after declaring that the bankrupt was entitled to his certificate, the commissioner certified in the words following, to what "class" of certificate the bankrupt was entitled:—

"And I further certify that his bankruptcy has arisen from unavoidable losses and misfortunes, and that he is entitled to, and I do award him, this certificate as of the first class; or that his bankruptcy has not wholly arisen from unavoidable losses and misfortunes, and that he is entitled to, and I do award him, this certificate as of the second class; or, that his bankruptcy has not arisen from unavoidable losses or misfortunes, and that he is only entitled to, and I do only award him, this certificate as of the third class."

He should beg to move that the above words be left out, objecting to the power thus to be conferred upon the Bankrupt Commissioner.

observed, that the commissioner now pronounced, or might pronounce, his judgment in public—in open court—in a bankruptcy case, and it might be reported and read by the whole world. The Bill only proposed to enable the commissioner to append his judgment in an authentic form to the certificate—a judgment he now delivered in open court—for the guidance and satisfaction of those who were going to deal with the bankrupt in future. It was clearly the intention of the Bill, that in a ease where bankruptcy had wholly arisen from unavoidable loss and misfortune, the bankrupt would be entitled to a perfect and absolute release. If there was no misconduct, then the bankrupt would have his certificate of the first class. He repeated, that the commissioner now gave his judgment and reasons publicly; and if he were to put them upon record in the certificate, it would at all events make the bankrupt more cautious in his future dealings.

said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield persevered in the Amendment, he should feel it his duty to divide with him. He had already stated the nature of his objections to this particular operation of the measure, and the grounds upon which he entertained them. He would just recapitulate what the House had already, and without a division, adopted. They had given this judge of the Bankrupt Court a considerable amount of criminal jurisdiction; they had given him a most ample power over the property of the debtor; they had given him, under certain limits, power over the person of the debtor; and now they were going deliberately to give him a most fearful power, as it appeared to him, over the character of the debtor. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General defended this provision upon the principle that it would be for the benefit of future creditors that the true character of the bankrupt should be ascertained, and should appear upon the certificate, and this certificate was to be an enduring record, and to be published in the London Gazette. But it appeared quite possible that there might be a case in which a bankrupt had sustained unavoidable losses and unavoidable misfortunes, but in which the commissioner might arrive at an erroneous judgment in consequence of a false impression having been conveyed to his mind. Yet this power over the character of the bankrupt was to be entrusted to a single judge, having no assistance from any other judge, or from a jury, or a bar, to check any error of judgment into which he might fall from a false impression on his mind; and he was to act at once, and peremptorily—it might be hastily—in a matter upon which his judgment might have been so formed upon a false impression. To one only of these judges was thus to be given the power of inflicting a permanent brand upon a man, and of blasting for ever his character. That, he must say, was a power too fearful to be entrusted to any single judge. If he was not much mistaken, there had been considerable division of opinion upon this question in the Committee, and that one of the highest authorities upon such a point, the Judge-Advocate, had taken the same view which had been advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. Such a power was quite alien to the jurisdiction of this country. But if it was to be given at all, there was no doubt it should be given in the clearest and most definite manner. Yet in how capricious a form was it cast—" unavoidable losses and misfortunes?" Could there be a term much more indefinite, even if it were known to the law? But was it a term known to the law? Was it not new? If new, must not constructions be put upon it; and if constructions were put upon it, would not conflicting decisions be given by these Judges all over the country? Again, what could be more arbitrary than the second-class certificate, provided for cases where the bankruptcy was adjudged to have arisen, not wholly, but partially, from "unavoidable losses and misfortunes?" He could understand a positive line of demarcation between two cases of loss or misfortune and of dishonesty; but this medium appeared to him the most capricious and, at the same time, arbitrary line ever at tempted to be drawn. He should be sorry, at this period of the Session, to do anything to retard the public business; but it seemed to him that they were about to make an alteration in commercial law, which it was now impossible for the representatives of the people duly to consider. Whatever their desire to uphold commercial credit in this country, they ought not hastily to deal with a principle in criminal jurisprudence which was new, and which might operate most injuriously upon the credit and characters of men. He should be sorry, in the extreme, if any false step in legislation was made in this matter; and he must conclude by repeating, that to give this great power, affecting both the person and character of a man, to be wielded by a judge, solely from impressions drawn by himself, in the absence of a bar, and un checked by public opinion, did undoubtedly appear to him most objectionable and dangerous.

said, in his opinion the distinction in grades of bankruptcy would very much reduce the stigma of bankruptcy to an honest trader. And he could assure the House, on the part of the mercantile community, that they were not the hardhearted people they had been represented to be, but that they were most anxious to protect the honest trader, whilst, at the same time, they punished the fraudulent.

said, the votes of a good many Members would depend upon the answer they should receive to the question, whether there was to be a power of appeal after a certificate had been given? and if so, whether each class of certificates would be entitled to an appeal?

It appeared to him that the appeal clause did not give an appeal to each class of certificates.

said, the right hon. Baronet would find, by reference to the 12th Section, page 5, that it gave the appeal. If there were any doubt, however, he would take care that it should be made quite clear upon the third reading of the Bill.

said, he should give his vote in favour of the schedule as it stood. In the first place, he did it for the sake of the really honest, but unfortunate, man, who was entitled to have from the commissioner or the court that certificate of his conduct to which one who was not free from blame would not be entitled. And, in the next place, because the Attorney General had assured the House that he would take care to make provision for allowing a good and effectual appeal.

said, that the object of his proposition had been simply to induce the House to mitigate the severity of the law.

rose to move for copies of correspondence between the Government of Ireland and the civil and military authorities of the county of Down, relating to processions, &c., on the 12th July.

trusted the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, at all events for the present, the matter being only now in the process of investigation.

entirely concurred in what had fallen from the noble Lord, He had told the hon. Member for Dublin a little time ago, the Motion was one he could not agree to, the more especially as the investigation was only now in progress.

said, he was sorry he could not comply with the appeals which had been addressed to him from both sides of the House, for he did not feel he could do so without a neglect of those duties incumbent upon him as an independent Member. Since he last had the honour of addressing them on this most melancholy subject, another murder had been committed on an unoffending Roman Catholic by a body of Orangemen in the county Down. [Viscount CASTLEREAGH: No, no!] He could assure the noble Lord it occurred in that part of Belfast which stood in the county Down, and the facts were these: It appeared that on the 11th of July, a body of Orangemen attacked a man of the name of John Cleary, an un offending Roman Catholic, and murdered him in a brutal and savage manner. Informations were tendered to the Mayor of Belfast, once a Member of that House, but he and a brother magistrate refused the informations against four of the parties who were sworn to. But they went further; they not only refused the informations, but they allowed the men that were charged to go at large upon bail, respectively of 5l. and 10l.; and to show the contrast in their conduct, they ordered Daniel Cleary, the brother of the murdered man, to give bail to an amount which was quite beyond the reach of his humble circumstances. He was, therefore, sent to gaol, and there consigned to a dungeon, with his hair cropped, and other such treatment as only awaited felons; yet, after two days, when his brother died, he was set at liberty. This man then applied to the lord lieutenant of the county for the arrest of the parties charged; but, so far as he had heard, they were still allowed to go at large. Under these circumstances, he could not neglect the only opportunity that was offered him to bring a case before them which had caused the greatest excitement in Dublin, and the rest of the north. He knew that there had been a sham coroner's inquest held on the body, and the parties had been whitewashed. Well, it appeared that these magistrates held a solemn magisterial meeting after the occurrence, and thanked the police, notwithstanding the fact, which was known, that they had pursued the people, fired upon them, and caused their death. Shortly afterwards a public dinner was got up by the Orangemen in Downpatrick, the capital of the county where these events had transpired, and Mr. Boers was present, and the high sheriff of the county, Mr. Keown, presided on the occasion. Mr. Beers made a speech in which he rejoiced over the occurrences; he said, "There has been a small blot, if I may be allowed to call it a blot, upon these great triumphs." Such was his speech; yet that individual was in the commission of the peace, and both he and the high sheriff were allowed still to remain magistrates. Besides these two gentlemen, there were three stipendiary magistrates, who presided over the murder of the people; but Mr. Tabiteau, and the others, remained in their office. He held in his hand the proceedings of the Orange Committee of 1835. They disclosed much information bearing upon this question. It was there made clear that the Orangemen of that day conspired not only against the liberties of their fellow-countrymen, but also for the purpose of altering the succession to the Throne; and it was also more than insinuated that more than twenty regiments had Orange warrants issued to them. That the object was to alter the succession to the Throne, had, he believed, been proved by Colonel Fairman. In these observations he begged to be understood as not intending to utter one disrespectful word of the Earl of Roden in his private character, for no man's character in private life was more highly respected. But he was dealing with the political character of the noble Lord, and with his political character only; and if his acts had led to a disturbance of the public peace, and the encouragement he gave to the reckless and sanguinary Orange faction to murder, how could be (Mr. Reynolds) restrain himself from impeaching the noble Lord, as he now did, before his fellow-countrymen? The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary said there was to be inquiry, and he wanted no discussion.

What I said was, that the subject was under inquiry; and I suggested that it would not be doing any good to have a discussion upon it whilst the investigation was going on.

said, the right hon. Baronet had failed to convince him that this matter ought not now to be spoken of in that House. He would remind the right hon. Baronet that Her Majesty was likely to honour Ireland by paying that country a complimentary visit. Now, the mass of the people of Ireland were Roman Catholics, and they believed this affair had been a wanton, malicious, sectarian, and party conspiracy, to deprive the people of their lives. Unless, therefore, the question was now discussed—unless full satisfaction was given—unless there was a perfect understanding that justice would be done to the people, a great deal of discord and disunion, which might be exhibited in an unpleasant shape, might be found to exist in Ireland at a time when every good Irishman wished there should be nothing but peace and good-will. He was himself so anxious that there should be nothing but peace and good-will upon the arrival of Her Majesty, that if any man smote him on the right cheek, he would offer him the left also. He asked the right hon. Baronet these questions:—Was the Earl of Roden still a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant of the county of Down? Was Mr. Beers still in the commission of the peace? This gentleman had stated, at a dinner, that the place where the outrage was committed had been called Dolly's Brae from time immemorial, but it should now be baptized "King William's Hill." And they had baptized it, but how? In the blood of the people. They murdered a boy ten years of age, and they shot an unfortunate woman of eighty—for these heroes were remarkable for wreaking their vengeance upon children and women. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the county of Armagh was not so liberal as he was brave; but after these transactions, as we were in a transition state, he did not despair of converting him to liberal opinions. He regretted there should be so much party dissension in Ireland, for whilst other countries were working out their prosperity and independence by union, the people of Ireland seemed as if they were only working their own destruction by their party feelings. He condemned marchings upon the 17th March as much as he did marchings upon the unholy anniversary of the 12th July. And, after all, what was that anniversary? The anniversary of a battle between a Dutch King and an English Stuart; and upon the 12th of July in every year the followers of the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh met to celebrate the triumph of the Dutch King, King William. "This," they said, "was the triumph of Protestantism over Catholicism; we heat you then, and we will continue shedding your blood till the end of time, in the name of King William still." He asked the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, however, to give Ireland the practical benefit of his interpretation of the law, that all armed processions were illegal. He asked the right hon. Baronet to protect the unprotected Catholics of the north of Ireland against Orange aggressions. What was to prevent the Attorney General from indicting the whole of the men engaged in the transaction? Nothing. But it might be said that it was not convenient to vex the Orangemen, they being exceedingly pugnacious. This was no reason why the Government should not enforce peace, order, and obedience to the law. In asking for the returns for which he moved, he was not imputing to the Government the intention of suppressing any documentary evidence capable of throwing light upon the unfortunate circumstances of this affair; but he told them distinctly, that the answer he had received from the right hon. Baronet would not satisfy the people of Ireland. The people of Ireland were beginning to think that Protestant ascendancy was about again to exhibit its deformed head; and that the Orange establishment, which they had been led to believe was in "the tomb of the Capulets," was about to be resuscitated. They' were beginning to think that the Orange Association was part and parcel of the temporalities of that Church which had caused the people of Ireland so much heartburning upon the one hand, and so much persecution upon the other. Her Majesty's Government, under such circumstances, ought to be thankful to him for affording them an opportunity of disclaiming any intention to shield these delinquents, and for pointing out to them the parties who appeared to have been the leaders in the catastrophe. He was anxious that examples should be made of the Earl of Roden, Mr. Beers, and the stipendiary magistrates. Why? First, because justice demanded it; and, second, because such disturbances were calculated to mar the march of prosperity and improvement. Until all sectarian and political ascendancy was put an end to, Ireland would never have peace; without peace there could not be happiness; and in the absence of both, Ireland could not have prosperity. In conclusion, he prayed the right hon. Baronet to act vigorously in this matter. Let him recollect that for a violation of the law, William Smith O'Brien and his associates had been transported for life; let him recollect that for writing seditious articles in newspapers, John Mitchell and others had been transported for ten years. The theory of the law might be that such offences were more heinous than Orange murders; but it appeared to him that Orange murders were the more heinous, He was justified, therefore, in calling upon the right hon. Baronet, even before the tediousness of the inquiry, to ascertain immediately whether these magistrates had been present at an assembly which under the common law the right hon. Secretary had said was illegal. That fact being ascertained, let those magistrates be deprived of their magisterial position, and some atonement be made to the survivors of the unfortunate people who had been murdered on that occasion.

seconded the Motion.

said, he had already intimated, in the few words he addressed to the House before the hon. Gentleman brought the Motion forward, the reasons which should induce him to refuse the production of these papers. They were reasons with which the House had clearly intimated they agreed. It would be most inexpedient to produce the correspondence whilst the subject was under inquiry; and at the same time he could not but deprecate a discussion that could not be productive of any benefit. He had stated before, and he now repeated it, that the Lord Lieutenant had directed a thorough and searching inquiry to be made into all the circumstances connected with the lamentable occurrence to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention. The hon. Gentleman called upon the Government, both here and in Ireland, to act firmly; but he (Sir G. Grey) must say that if they were to act in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's observations they would be punishing people without trial or investigation, and that their proceedings ought to be characterised by some other term than that of acting "firmly." The Lord Lieutenant had acted with great judgment and moderation, but not the less with "firmness," in directing a full and searching inquiry, and in committing it to a person fully competent in all respects to conduct it, and of whose fitness, impartiality, and ability no one could doubt. He did not think the House would condemn the Lord Lieutenant for having taken the necessary proceedings to satisfy himself as to the nature of the transactions. Of the other parts of the speech of the hon. Member, he (Sir G. Grey) wished to say nothing. He only hoped that Members who concurred in the view that he took, would not continue the discussion, for it could only tend to produce those results which the hon. Gentleman himself said he deprecated.

was sure the House would see it was impossible, after the marked allusions made to him by the hon. Member for Dublin, that he could refrain from one or two observations. He was delighted that the House had seen a specimen of what had so frequently taken place at Conciliation Hall; and that the hon. Member had expressed himself in that House in the same unqualified and unreserved terms which he had been in the habit of using in those meetings. From his own knowledge, and from his experience—now of nearly half a century, during which he had had the honour of holding a high situation in the Loyal Protestant Society of Orangemen in Ireland, he could give the most unqualified contradiction to every one of the hon. Member's statements respecting them. The tale of its having been contemplated to alter the succession of the Crown, was too contemptible to require notice. He had intended to move, as an addition to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, for "a copy of any correspondence between the Government of Ireland and the civil and military authorities of the county of Down, relating to processions, public meetings, or armed assemblages of the people on the 12th day of this instant July; for a similar return of any correspondence relating to a procession at Crossgar, in the county Down, on the 17th day of March last; and also of a meeting and procession which took place near the town of Ready, in the county of Armagh, in the afternoon of Thursday, the 28th day of June last, or early in the morning of Friday, the 29th." On the first of these occasions there was a procession of armed Ribbonmen. Twenty-six Ribbon flags were displayed, and several shots were fired at innocent and unarmed people. On the 28th of June, St. Peter's eve, a body of 500 Ribbonmen assembled near Ready, every one of them well armed. An inspector of police went after them, taking with him about twenty men, the whole force he had, and they found the Ribbonmen training in regular military order. Three of the leaders immediately stepped forward, and said to the inspector, "If you do not interfere with us, we will not interfere with you; but if you attempt to move one step against us, we will fire upon you." The officer did not feel justified in risking the lives of his men, and he avoided a collision. It was right and proper that the House should be put in possession of all such facts, and not only of one-sided statements, such as that made by the hon. Member for Dublin. Nobody could doubt the loyalty of Orangemen. On several occasions they had volunteered their services to the Government, and Lord Camden had accepted them. On a late occasion, when rebellion was threatening throughout the country, the Protestants of the north volunteered their services to the Government to act in any manner and in any part where they might be required. The consequence was, that the whole of the troops in the province of Ulster were withdrawn except two depôts. In whose hands, then, remained the preservation of the peace of the province? In those of the Protestants. It was not his intention to have alluded to the events that had recently taken place in the county of Down; but as the conduct of the persons present upon that occasion had been brought before the House, he would read a challenge sent to the gentry of the county three days previous to the 12th of July. The hon. and gallant Baronet read this document. It was addressed to "George Hall, Esq., Justice of the Peace," and it warned them not to meet at Dolly's Brae; and bid defiance to all Her Majesty's authorities and forces; concluding thus—"Repeal, repeal, repeal for ever! From the Repealers." The hon. and gallant Baronet also read a report of the proceedings at the dinner to Mr. Beers, with the view of showing that they had no reference whatever to the transactions at Dolly's Brae. He complained of the hon. Member for Dublin having called the inquiry before the coroner a "mock coroner's inquest." Nothing could be more unjust or unfounded; and he put it to the House whether the use of such expressions was justifiable? He should not, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, press his Amendment.

did not think it necessary to defend the magistrates of the county of Down against the attacks of the hon. Member for Dublin. Those attacks refuted themselves, and he did not think the gentlemen of Down cared, or need care, very much about them. He thought it exceedingly unfair towards those magistrates who had been doing their duty in a time of great difficulty, that at the time when they were about to undergo a judicial trial, they should be subjected to the criticism, and he might say the abusive language, that had been used in that House. Perhaps he might be allowed to say one word with regard to these armed bodies being illegal. He wished to know why that fact had not been discovered at the time of the processions on the 17th of March last; or why it was not considered to be within the province of the Government or of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim the meetings, when it was known that they were about to take place? They should, if necessary, have written to the lords lieutenant of counties and to the magistrates, requiring them to make known to the people that these meetings, from whatever side they came, were to be suppressed. But the fact was, he believed great misapprehension prevailed on the subject. It was true that Mr. Baldwin had declared the other day in Down, that armed meetings were illegal; but the Earl of Roden and the other magistrates who took part in the proceedings, had no idea of anything of that kind. It was to be supposed that even the stipendiary magistrates did not know of the illegality, or that they would not otherwise have been present. The people were left to act in utter ignorance of the law. But if the meetings were illegal, why, he would ask, had not the fact been so stated when the Government had been pressed to bring in a Bill to prevent their taking place? For his own part, he believed that the subject was one on which great misapprehension prevailed, and he should therefore again protest against those gentlemen being subjected at the present stage of the inquiry to the attacks of the hon. Member for Dublin, who wished to have judgment pronounced in this case before the trial took place.

said, he thought the noble Lord was not justified in describing this as an unfair movement on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin. This unfortunate occurrence in the north had created the greatest excitement, not only in Dublin, but throughout the whole south of Ireland, and it was feared that the event might lead to further disturbances hereafter. He quite agreed with the noble Lord, that it was unfortunate the Government had not taken steps to prevent the processions, when it was known for weeks before that preparations for them were in progress. That, however, not having been done, a responsibility had been incurred by the magistrates who attended, from which they should not be allowed to escape. Allusion bad been made to the Repeal Association; but the magistrates connected with that body had been dismissed from the commission of the peace on a few hours' notice. This sunk deep into the minds of the Irish people at the present moment, because they felt that equal justice was not administered between both parties. The Repeal Association was never considered as an illegal society, and therefore a connexion with it was far different from belonging to the armed assemblage by which these murders had been perpetrated. He would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion for the present, on certain conditions. He admitted, with the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that it would be impossible to produce all the correspondence at the present moment; but when the report on the matter had been made to the Government, he hoped they would consent to lay on the table of the House all the correspondence that had taken place between the Government and the civil and military authorities. He thought that his hon. Friend had attained his object, which was to express to the country and to the House the feelings of the Irish people on this subject.

said, that he agreed with the hon. Member who had last spoken, when he said it was the duty of the Government to have declared all processions illegal before the 17th March; but he rose for the purpose of appealing to the House, whether it was desirable that this discussion should proceed further. He could not help thinking that he might even appeal to the Member for Dublin, whether, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, that the affair was under inquiry at the present moment, it was not more consistent with justice and fairness, as regards both parties—those whose cause he professed to advocate, as well as those whom he prejudged—that the discussion should be postponed till all the facts of the case should be fully and fairly before the House, when the House should be in a condition to judge who were really the aggressors. He thought that every well-minded man should discourage these inopportune discussions on partial and ex-parte statements, when so much excitement prevailed. Hon. Members ought to bear in mind that such strong language as they had heard from the hon. Member for Dublin, was of all things, at such a moment, calculated to exasperate party feeling, and to aggravate those dissensions in Ireland which were so much to be deplored; he, therefore, trusted the feeling of the House would be against any further discussion at present.

expressed a hope that the Government would extend the inquiry to what had occurred at Belfast. He hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh and others would use the influence which they possessed among the Orange party to prevent such processions in future. He believed that his hon. and gallant Friend and the Earl of Roden had never encouraged these processions, and that they deeply regretted the dissensions which prevailed.

said, he felt that the Orangemen would not suffer by anything that was said by the anti-Protestant party in that House. He would wish to know why the hon. Member for Limerick and others who had spoken on the subject, had kept out of sight altogether the reasons which had induced the Orangemen to assemble. There were not only challenges sent out to the Orangemen, and threats that they would be murdered if they ventured to march, but the matter was so notorious that the Government had thought it necessary to send military to the spot. With regard to some observations that had fallen from him the other night, he thought, wherever vulgar abuse, excited by religious hatred and political animosity, was displayed, it was entitled to scorn and contempt.

felt that after the appeal which had been made to him, it would be unbecoming to press the Motion, In reference to what had been said by the right hon. Secretary of State for I Home Affairs about the Earl of Clarendon, he had to express his belief that in the Earl of Clarendon's hands the question was perfectly safe. But though he had great confidence in the Earl of Clarendon's good sense and impartiality, he felt surprised that his Excellency had not dealt with the northern magistrates as the Chancellor of Ireland had with the magistrates of the south, who had only inquired whether they attended certain meetings; and on receiving their answers in the affirmative, removed them from the commission of the peace. That was a gross injustice; but there they had to adopt a circuitous course by an injury. It was his opinion that the Earl of Roden ought to have been written to and asked if he had attended the meeting, and if he had he should be at once dismissed. He denied that the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh was correct in stating that no reference had been made to Dolly's Brae at the dinner, for Mr. Beers had stated "that they had baptized the spot, which in future would not be called Dolly's Brae, but King William's Hill." He thought that this was sufficient to show that allusion had been made on that occasion to the scene of the outrage. He thought great good had been accomplished by that discussion, for the people of Ireland would be made aware that such scenes could not be acted with impunity. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Armagh had commenced his speech with the assertion that none of his (Mr. Reynolds') statements could be proved; but the hon. and gallant Baronet had not answered them—he had left them undisturbed. He would now say to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, that although he had great confidence in his sense of justice, he and those who coincided with him were of opinion that justice in this case ought to have been more rapidly administered.

begged to remind the House that when Parliament expressed a wish that the Orange Society should be dissolved, the Earl of Roden took the whole odium of that act on himself, and that it was mainly owing to his influence that the Orangemen had submitted to the proceedings so quietly as they had done. He believed there was no one who would be more rejoiced if the recent processions were to be the last to take place in the north of Ireland, than the noble Lord to whom he alluded.

said, he did not wish to see the Government act in the summary manner on this occasion which his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin seemed to desire. He thought it most important that the decision of the Government should be deliberate, and that it should appear to every person in Ireland as an act of solemn justice rather than of rapid vindictiveness.